Deucednuisance:Ace Rimmer: Umm... affirmative defense means you are saying "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't a crime"

How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".

If you're you're going to claim the former, you kinda have to do the latter.

And the claim itself is insufficient:

"Yes, I shot that man, but it wasn't a crime because a giant rabid gorilla was charging at me, so I fired at it, but it leaped into the clouds, sprouted leathery wings and flew away, so my shot went awry" would demand some sort of proof, would it not?

The Singing Bush:ChaosStar: o, just showing you a holstered gun does not qualify as lethal force. It certainly warrants you calling the police, because that's illegal, and getting the hell out of the situation, but legally you can't kill them for just flashing you a view of their gun.Now if they said "I'm gonna kill you The Singing Bush!" and they start reaching to lift their shirt, such as to produce a weapon, you do not have to wait for them to actually produce the weapon. You can attack them right then and there as a preventative to the felony action.You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.

What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious? Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out. I can't do that?

Using the concrete, at all, is lethal force, period.Reaching for their gun is a threat to their life, because they don't know what you're going to do when you get it. This is what happened with the GZ case.

nekom:This text is now purple:You're going to have to help out with that slavery-as-origin-of-racism angle. The Irish suffered under German racism, but I don't see much slavery having gone on to cause it.

Oh sure racism has existed pretty much since human civilization has. I just think that slavery was a key factor in it in the case of the USA. There was a time when it was common for a LOT of people to actually believe that they were less than human, inferior and not fit to live amongst us, even some who argued that slavery was to their benefit. That's why even after slavery officially ended, blacks were viewed as inferior and treated as such for many many generations. It takes a LONG time to heal those kind of wounds.

Zimmerman's Uncle because he claimed to have heard the 9/11 call playing from the other room and hearing the screams and immediately saying 'Why is this George on television, what's happening?' having absolutely no idea what was the context.

Second was a viet nam medic used to hear people talk in the day then scream in pain during combat and able to identify voices.

Yeah the rest of them I don't really care either way, but those two have weight in my mind, and I bet that the jury thinks the same thing.

True, but they were both still friends of Zimmerman. Anyone with clear ties to either Martin or Zimmerman has to be considered a potentially biased witness. Though I suppose throwing them out there doesn't really HURT the defense any. If anything, it's reasonable doubt as to who it was that was screaming.

Smackledorfer:ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Somehow I doubt that if treyvon had killed zimmerman if zimmermans gun had misfired that you would be in all these threads rabidly attacking anyone saying treyvon was guilty.

What you also leave out is that it is up to the jury to decide whether one person's actions rise to a level justifying lethal force. You cannot simply say 'hurr I thought he'd kill me' and you definitely cannot expect the jury to ignore a little thing like how you were running around playing cop for fun in the first place.

And by the way, you have serious ignorance about what justifies lethal force. Nobody gets to go around punching people in the face and then murder the person who is too good at defending themselves. Is concrete lethal force? Sure.Depending on the situation, so is the angry guy stalking you at night, being racist, and physically assaulting you. That is what this trial is about.

If I was out for a walk and you started beating me up, I would be justified in slipping a knife in you. You would not be justified in shooting me as I pulled it. I am under no obligation to presume you are only going to hurt me in a manner other than serious bodily harm, nor to trust that those couple mma matches I watched will let me fend you off.

just wanna point out Travon did the punching and the head banging and reached for the gun. ZImmerman followed a person who was suspicious, that he didn't know walking around an area he was there to look after. hope that clears things up for you.

washington-babylon:I find it humorous that so many people think that Slavery=Black People in fields. There was a large amount of whites enslaved in the U.S. and other places around the world at the same time. A large portion of these were Irish (in fact, a certain book called "Kidnapped" by R.L. Stevenson was written with this as a main plot point). A great many of these people were stolen children, either orphans or children of families who were of the wrong religious or political faction. Now, I will agree that the majority that were enslaved were Black (or Native American) especially toward the 1860's, I just wish to point out that there were victims from MANY races. This fact is not taught in grade schools today, and has been all but forgotten by most people in the U.S. The last places that it is seriously discussed are obscure history journals and the occasional rare college history lecture.

That's true. Just watched a documentary called "Black slaves, Red masters" that was about Cherokee who took some of their slaves along on the trail of tears. But it eventually became almost exclusively African slaves, at least in the USA, and my theory is that calling an entire race of people less than human and treating them as property, it's taken generations to get the bulk of people to accept that they deserve to be treated as equals, and we're not even at that point yet if you look at the economic statistics.

But yes, just about every race of people enslaved someone of another race (or their own) at some point in history.

This nice Mr. Bimmerman has a German-sounding name (NO, HE DOESN'T. HE'S NOT SHERMAN. HE'S LATIN AMERIKAN. THE BIMMERMANS ARE AN OLD FAMILY OF URAGUAY.)

I say hang him.

And while you're at it, hang Bitler*, Bosef Bengele, Bustav Bagner, and Berich Braub, to name but a few people with German-sounding names who mysteriously were not hanged in the 1940s.

There are an astonishing lot of people with German-sounding names nowadays who are Latin Americans. To be on the safe side, why not lynch Carlos Mencia? I know it doesn't start with B. But then he's not a Nazi hiding under an assumed name or else he would be Barlos Bencia.

Just be thorough. Efficient. Clean. Neat.

Claim you were making cuckoo clocks in the Black Forest or Switzerland during the War.

s2s2s2:The Singing Bush: What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious?

Then they could and should shoot you if they are able.

The Singing Bush: Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out. I can't do that?

No.

So what could I do then? Remember, in this scenario they threatened me and I attacked them in self-defense because I feared for my life. I was unable to to disarm someone who legitimately could unholster his gun and shoot me. So I have to let them shoot me? That doesn't seem right.

The Singing Bush:Remember, in this scenario they threatened me and I attacked them in self-defense

Oh, well in that case, you can go back to your car, get a gun, go back to the argument, and kill whoever was threatening you (they went over this scenario during the request to acquit based on the Prosecution's inability to prove their case).

Deucednuisance:Ace Rimmer: Umm... affirmative defense means you are saying "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't a crime"

How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".

If you're you're going to claim the former, you kinda have to do the latter.

And the claim itself is insufficient:

"Yes, I shot that man, but it wasn't a crime because a giant rabid gorilla was charging at me, so I fired at it, but it leaped into the clouds, sprouted leathery wings and flew away, so my shot went awry" would demand some sort of proof, would it not?

I'm stunned by your insistence on doubling down on your stupidity. Even on Fark, you're a rare bird.

I gave you a legal citation. It's called Montijo. It's not only recent and on point, it's the appellate district for Seminole County.

You responded with Wikipedia and Angela Corey's press conference.

Even after all of these threads, where jackass after jackass boldly pronounces legalisms that are utterly, exactly wrong, you are actually the first one who has decided to take your ignorance to the next level. You've gone from being wrong to aggressively, actively wrong.

A claim of self-defense must be disproven by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt.

I can't make you go read Montijo. I can only hope to convince you that you are seriously uninformed if you don't.

DROxINxTHExWIND:...except if you're black and walking home. In that scenerio, you should respond respectfully to every question that some stranger has about whether you "belong" in your neighborhood.

It wasn't Trayvon's neighborhood. he was a visitor.

But I agree. Reverse nothing but the races, and Zimmerman is already in lockup, serving time. That also goes to Latino GZ's case. Citing how this case would be unjust if you reversed the race, and got the aforementioned conviction doesn't mean we should convict Zimmerman. It means black people should get fair trials, when they often do not.

Deucednuisance:Ace Rimmer: Umm... affirmative defense means you are saying "Yes, I did it, but here's why it isn't a crime"

How is that functionally any different than what I said?

"Here's why is isn't a crime"... "because this is what actually happened".

If you're you're going to claim the former, you kinda have to do the latter.

And the claim itself is insufficient:

"Yes, I shot that man, but it wasn't a crime because a giant rabid gorilla was charging at me, so I fired at it, but it leaped into the clouds, sprouted leathery wings and flew away, so my shot went awry" would demand some sort of proof, would it not?

If the jury accepts the defense then he's declared not guilty. The End.

If they don't accept the defense it doesn't mean he's immeditly declared guilty. It just means he can no longer use that as his defense. At no time does the prosecution ever not have to prove their case.

It seems as if you're arguing that by claiming self defense the prosecution only has to show it wasn't to get a conviction.

The Singing Bush:So what could I do then? Remember, in this scenario they threatened me and I attacked them in self-defense because I feared for my life. I was unable to to disarm someone who legitimately could unholster his gun and shoot me. So I have to let them shoot me? That doesn't seem right.

Still no. The standard is imminent threat. A person standing there displaying a holstered firearm saying stupid shiat isn't the smartest person in the room, but it's still not an imminent threat. Despite what some of my fellow citizens believe, the mere presence of a firearms is not an imminent threat of death

nekom:washington-babylon:I find it humorous that so many people think that Slavery=Black People in fields. There was a large amount of whites enslaved in the U.S. and other places around the world at the same time. A large portion of these were Irish (in fact, a certain book called "Kidnapped" by R.L. Stevenson was written with this as a main plot point). A great many of these people were stolen children, either orphans or children of families who were of the wrong religious or political faction. Now, I will agree that the majority that were enslaved were Black (or Native American) especially toward the 1860's, I just wish to point out that there were victims from MANY races. This fact is not taught in grade schools today, and has been all but forgotten by most people in the U.S. The last places that it is seriously discussed are obscure history journals and the occasional rare college history lecture.

That's true. Just watched a documentary called "Black slaves, Red masters" that was about Cherokee who took some of their slaves along on the trail of tears. But it eventually became almost exclusively African slaves, at least in the USA, and my theory is that calling an entire race of people less than human and treating them as property, it's taken generations to get the bulk of people to accept that they deserve to be treated as equals, and we're not even at that point yet if you look at the economic statistics.

But yes, just about every race of people enslaved someone of another race (or their own) at some point in history.

That is correct. I am aware of that fact (and also aware that the Native American slave trade flourished for an estimated 300 years), however I was pointing out the fact that even at the end of the Civil war there were slaves from almost every race being held against their will in the U.S. Whether or not one race was the majority or not doesn't give them any more right to pull the "Because slavery" card. I have ancestors on my mother's side who were Irish slaves, so I could have equal right to pull that card if chose to. Oddly enough, you Never hear any of the other enslaved races from that time period pull that card. Why is that? What is so different?

/for the record, I am legally colorblind.//quite amusing during racially charged discussions.///Not so amusing the rest of the time.

ChaosStar:The Singing Bush: ChaosStar: o, just showing you a holstered gun does not qualify as lethal force. It certainly warrants you calling the police, because that's illegal, and getting the hell out of the situation, but legally you can't kill them for just flashing you a view of their gun.Now if they said "I'm gonna kill you The Singing Bush!" and they start reaching to lift their shirt, such as to produce a weapon, you do not have to wait for them to actually produce the weapon. You can attack them right then and there as a preventative to the felony action.You cannot, however, use lethal force even at this point, such as bashing their head into cement or beating them to where they fear they are going to die, as no actual lethal force was used against you and you have effectively neutralized the threat and taken control.

What if I wasn't using lethal force, but I was just hitting their head into cement to try to knock them unconscious? Maybe I reached for the gun and they were able to stop me from grabbing it, so my only chance to truly neutralize the threat was to knock them out. I can't do that?

Using the concrete, at all, is lethal force, period.Reaching for their gun is a threat to their life, because they don't know what you're going to do when you get it. This is what happened with the GZ case.

OK, so if I'm reading this right, I can attack someone for reaching for his gun as a preventative to felony action, but not with lethal force even if I feared for my life. I am unable to disarm him, so I have not neutralized the threat. But I can't try to knock him unconscious so that I can disarm him? I have to just kinda go along with the fight and toe the line to where he doesn't fear for his life and in hopes he doesn't pull his gun and shoot? Seriously, those are my options?

Facetious_Speciest:You know, it's good for his case and all, but this has to be incredibly embarrassing to Zimmerman.

Hahaha yeah I mean in the last 15 minutes we've learned:

- Grossly obese- On a scale of 1 to 10, he started on at a .5 and at his best got to a 1 out of 10- Did not know how to punch- Had no idea how to kick- Did not know how to defend himself- Weak and could barely lift weights- Looked traumatized after the incident with Trayvon